Wade Kwon at Wade on Birmingham has a good round-up of Presidential endorsements from Alabama papers. Of the eight papers that have endorsed (or not, in one case), five support Obama, two support McCain, and one declines to endorse. Wade has links and excerpts for each editorial.
I was pretty surprised to see the Montgomery Advertiser endorse Obama — and to see the Huntsville Times decline to take a position. I was less than stunned to read that the Birmingham News and Mobile Press-Register chose to stick with the same old same old.
Real Clear Politics has McCain leading Obama in Alabama by nearly 24 points. Given the Obama endorsements from around the state, I wonder if the race might end up a little tighter than expected. That would be nice.
Thanks for the mention.
I’m shocked that so many Alabama newspapers went for Obama. But I don’t think it’ll make a difference in 8 days: This state is giving its 9 electoral votes to McCain no matter what.
Oh yeah, I don’t expect Obama to win here. I just hope it will be closer than 24 points.
Yes, but my favorite bit from the Press-Register, as Mobile’s Republican house organ now likes to style itself, wasn’t featured: “We’re not entirely comfortable with Sen. McCain’s political inclinations, which tend toward bipartisan accommodation when principled partisanship might serve the country better.”
My lawyer friend said he had to read it three times to make sure he’d read it right.
…Sen. McCain’s political inclinations, which tend toward bipartisan accommodation when principled partisanship might serve the country better.”
Perhaps the Press-Register operates in an alternate universe. Or the editorial writers have slept through the campaign.
The Press Register thinks that anyone who is not in favor of serfdom is too liberal. By that standard, even McCain is only a moderate.
I know I’m a bit off topic here, but the thought of all 9 of Alabama’s electoral college votes going to McCain burns me up. Every four years I lament about my vote not counting, but vote anyway. Could we PLEASE use the system other states have moved to that portion out the state’s electoral college votes along the percentage of votes for each candidate? It’s not as perfect as a popular vote, but if we are stuck with the stupid electoral college system, let’s make it better. That would allow Alabama to send 5 or 6 votes for McCain and 3 or 4 votes for Obama. I could live with that; it makes my one little vote count for something. Any chatter about this in Montgomery? No? Why am I not surprised?
Forget the electoral college. Let’s go to a straight popular vote for the presidency.
Any candidate that can’t master a 50-state strategy in the 21st century would likely be unqualified to assume the mantle, “Leader of the Free World.”
Renee, I would say Yeah! let’s switch! except for what the Republicans tried to pull recently with California’s many electoral votes. It’ll only work if we all jump in at the same time.
By “other states,” do you mean that national compact to apportion votes by percentage, the one that only takes effect when states equalling 270 votes have agreed to it? Because otherwise I think Maine and Nebraska are the only states who aren’t winner-take-all.
Renee, if Wikipedia has its facts straight, the two states that don’t have winner take all award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and two votes to the statewide winner. Which would still leave you and me spitting in the wind here in the 6th district.
I say it’s time to go with the popular vote. If we really believe in democracy, we might as well have one.
Two things: [1] Kathy, if it’s time to go with the popular vote, I guess it’s time for an amendment to the US Constitution…..which isn’t likely any time soon. [2] One more that one occasion over the years I’ve noticed that an endorsement by the Montgomery Advertiser is frequently a kiss of death.
Well, never mind. Just a thought, and not a very well researched one at that.
Popular vote, all the way!
Renee, it’s a good thought. I’m guessing there have been instances when the electoral college saved us from a bad presidential choice (that’s one I’d have to research), but we only have to look back eight years to see it give us a horrendous one.
The California proposal that Del mentioned would have gone the congressional district route, and it was being pushed by state Republicans who thought it was a good way to move the state from blue to red.
Don, I think the Montgomery Advertiser will be right this time around. And maybe it’s just yesterday’s story on the assassination plot, but for some reason the phrase “kiss of death” makes a shiver go up my spine. It’s probably all the Palin race-baiting that’s getting on my last nerve.
Kathy, I guess “kiss of death” was a poor choice of words considering the revelation of two idiots planning to assassinate Obama. I meant that an Advertiser endorsement often killed the candidacy of whomever the paper endorsed, BUT NOT the candidate.
Kathy, if it makes you feel any better, I read a follow-up at Salon about that plot. The guys were doofuses and I don’t think had a snowball’s chance of actually getting anywhere near BO. IIRC their plan involved them donning white tuxedos and top hats for the final dramatic shoot-em-up. The part about them slaughtering high school kids is still terrifying, though.
Don, I knew that wasn’t what you meant.
Del, I’m trying hard not to get paranoid, but I’m afraid that for every pair of idiots too stupid NOT to get caught, there are others out there who are just as evil but a lot smarter.
Back on topic… The thing that really has me baffled is the number of people voting solely on abortion views. The Birmingham News in particular seemed to make their pro-life stance their main reason for backing John McCain. I can understand to a point, but then after years of having anti-abortion politicians in office, I haven’t seen them do anything significant to overturn Roe v. Wade. For that matter, I haven’t seen them do anything significant in regard to “moral values.” So I have to vote on other issues– like the government keeping us safe and secure in various aspects. Economy, foreign policy, and corporate oversight are my new priorities.
Almod, I heard a story on NPR this morning about Douglas Kmiec, a pro-life Catholic who supports Obama and has taken heat from the Catholic Church about it:
“We are not baby killers,” Kmiec said. “We are simply finding an alternative way to build up life, to honor the truth of the human person, to promote human good.”
He also told the students that Obama’s policies would reduce the number of abortions more than McCain’s would. Kmiec says the position goes beyond abortion — it includes health care, living wages, caring for the poor.
Kmiec has paid dearly for his endorsement. He’s been denied communion, he’s been publicly criticized by a U.S. bishop, and he’s been told by many fellow Catholics that he’s going to hell.
Kmiec says he’s following the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. In an interview, he noted that the U.S. Catholic Bishops tell Catholics in their document Faithful Citizenship, to judge candidates by their stand on a variety of moral issues.
“If they just wanted to say, find the candidate who labels themselves pro-life, and vote for that candidate, they wouldn’t have given us a 36 page document,” he says. “They would have sent us a postcard or printed a line in the bottom of the parish news letter.”
Sounds a lot like what you’re saying.
Yeah, there’s a guy who’s been writing in to the B’ham News with the very same views and has been bashed about it. Catholics also do not generally recognize divorce, and one would have to question the support of Catholics behind a presidential candidate who was an adulterer.
It’s ridiculous, to be honest. There’s no such thing as a perfect human being, and that’s that.